Guardian today: "President Bush's deputy national security adviser, James Jeffrey, warned Russia of a "significant long-term impact" on US-Russian relations if Moscow continued its disproportionate actions."
Firstly, who on earth is this guy to lecture anyone on the ethics of invading foreign countries?
Secondly, shouldn't there be inverted commas round the word 'disproportionate', or is the Guardian jetissoning all notions of 'objectivity' in this context?
dimanche 10 août 2008
Language and War
The tired truism that a particular philosophical concept is the first to bite the dust the moment war starts is as relevant as ever as the war between Georgia and Russia gets under way. The conflict will end very soon with the withdrawl of Georgian troops back to their original positions. Yet the reporting in the MSM is another lesson in how the state propaganda machines operate. Their goal, of course, is to propogate a particular interpretation of events, irrespective of the reality, present partial evidence that substantiates it, repeat and lie back in the conviction that its consumers will deduce the desired response.
The desired response here, evidently, is that a large proportion of the public interested in this type of event, will believe the Russians are being aggressive and savage and that the "territorial integrity" of Georgia is to be respected. [Forget what yhou think you remember about Yugoslavia for now].
First, in the all to familiar pattern, the 'facts' are presented in a leading way. That is, the viewer is influenced by the header of a story. The BBC's latest report has it that "Georgia 'calls Ossetia ceasefire' ". Immediately this language conjours up the impression of reasonableness and peaceful intention. It is the Georgians who are the peace seekers and Russia that is the obstacle, even though, if one thinks about it, a ceasefire has to be jointly announced. But there is no "for" in the headline. Simply calling a ceasefire is futile. Calling for a ceasefire another. The Observer's interpretation of events "Russia widens attacks as world pleads for peace in South Ossetia." is also as clear, if more strongly pronounced. It is Russia that is the intransigent aggressor. Further, the world does indeed 'plead for peace' but this part of the headline suggests that the onus is on Russia for that peace to happen. (Presumably by a 'humiliating withdrawl').
As these reports continue, it becomes ever clearer just on whose side these sources are. France Inter reports that altough Georgia has called a ceasefire, Georgian troops continue to fight. However, on the BBC we read that "Georgia says it has ordered a ceasefire in South Ossetia and offered to hold peace talks with Moscow. But Russia denied that exchanges of fire had stopped, and continued to bomb targets near Georgia's capital Tbilisi, including the airport, reports said. " (Please think) It is Russia that is continuing the bombing and bears responsibility for the continuation of the fighting.
The Observer's opening paragraph is more forthright in its disapprobation of Russian action, "Russian bombers and artillery yesterday widened their attack against Georgian forces with strikes against towns and military bases across the country in a dangerous escalation of the two-day-old war. [REL emphasis] as if Georgian action on Friday afternoon were of no consequence and were certainly not an escalation. The line is clear. Russia is still the long range threat, despite all that Glasnost thing and how well capitalism has freed the soviet hordes since 1989 that has since been consigned to the dustbin of PR history. "The new enemy has always been Russia", the headlines might as well have read for all the double think their stances involve.
And so on. And on and so boringly on goes the straight laced po faced slanting of reality in all the liberal press. We are being fattened for future conflicts and military actions - Gerogian, Russian and Britisher alike. As Nietzsche said, though, truth is an old woman - and its them too who cop for it pretty soon in this type of sordid conflict.
The desired response here, evidently, is that a large proportion of the public interested in this type of event, will believe the Russians are being aggressive and savage and that the "territorial integrity" of Georgia is to be respected. [Forget what yhou think you remember about Yugoslavia for now].
First, in the all to familiar pattern, the 'facts' are presented in a leading way. That is, the viewer is influenced by the header of a story. The BBC's latest report has it that "Georgia 'calls Ossetia ceasefire' ". Immediately this language conjours up the impression of reasonableness and peaceful intention. It is the Georgians who are the peace seekers and Russia that is the obstacle, even though, if one thinks about it, a ceasefire has to be jointly announced. But there is no "for" in the headline. Simply calling a ceasefire is futile. Calling for a ceasefire another. The Observer's interpretation of events "Russia widens attacks as world pleads for peace in South Ossetia." is also as clear, if more strongly pronounced. It is Russia that is the intransigent aggressor. Further, the world does indeed 'plead for peace' but this part of the headline suggests that the onus is on Russia for that peace to happen. (Presumably by a 'humiliating withdrawl').
As these reports continue, it becomes ever clearer just on whose side these sources are. France Inter reports that altough Georgia has called a ceasefire, Georgian troops continue to fight. However, on the BBC we read that "Georgia says it has ordered a ceasefire in South Ossetia and offered to hold peace talks with Moscow. But Russia denied that exchanges of fire had stopped, and continued to bomb targets near Georgia's capital Tbilisi, including the airport, reports said. " (Please think) It is Russia that is continuing the bombing and bears responsibility for the continuation of the fighting.
The Observer's opening paragraph is more forthright in its disapprobation of Russian action, "Russian bombers and artillery yesterday widened their attack against Georgian forces with strikes against towns and military bases across the country in a dangerous escalation of the two-day-old war. [REL emphasis] as if Georgian action on Friday afternoon were of no consequence and were certainly not an escalation. The line is clear. Russia is still the long range threat, despite all that Glasnost thing and how well capitalism has freed the soviet hordes since 1989 that has since been consigned to the dustbin of PR history. "The new enemy has always been Russia", the headlines might as well have read for all the double think their stances involve.
And so on. And on and so boringly on goes the straight laced po faced slanting of reality in all the liberal press. We are being fattened for future conflicts and military actions - Gerogian, Russian and Britisher alike. As Nietzsche said, though, truth is an old woman - and its them too who cop for it pretty soon in this type of sordid conflict.
vendredi 8 août 2008
Fear the wrath of the poor
Good site over at http://le-poireau-rouge.blogspot.com/. One report is about the general strike in South Africa, which hasn't received any attention at all in the MSM. The country's own Mail and Guardian though, gives the heading "Fear the wrath of the poor" to its treatment of the worker action that paralysed South Africa earlier this week. The boss' representatives do their best to ridicule the stoppages, but their rhetoric is jaded and threadbeare. In fact the whole piece is biased.
The article is split into two halves. The attention given to the union action comes last and includes detials on the police presence, there to 'keep the peace'. This means that some economist's view point is given more immediacy than the strike of hundreds of thousands of working people. Thi is important because the people tend to pay more attention to the start of a piece of writing than then end. (Novels are different). Further the message of the start of an article influences the way the second section is interpreted. So far, so obvious. Here, the first ten paragraphs or so are taken up by the likes of Russell Lamberti, economic strategist at the Econometrix consultancy who blubs on about ""The unions are striking against something they can't control. Food and fuel prices are determined by global markets and not by policy. It's not a conspiracy against the poor.""
The first claim is false. Workers can control the means of production. The second is true but it is based in policy decisions. The third point is patently false. But no scepticism about these ideas is offered to the reader. Instead, the paper concentrates on a few burning tyres, the conclusions of travel company and police spokespeople and the timid demands of the conservative trades union movement. The people themselves were absent from the report, yet they are there in gigantic numbers. 93% strike action in some of South Africa's mines, a whole country on strike workers everywhere in the world gathering political strength.
Fear the wrath of the poor indeed. For We/they are very angry
The article is split into two halves. The attention given to the union action comes last and includes detials on the police presence, there to 'keep the peace'. This means that some economist's view point is given more immediacy than the strike of hundreds of thousands of working people. Thi is important because the people tend to pay more attention to the start of a piece of writing than then end. (Novels are different). Further the message of the start of an article influences the way the second section is interpreted. So far, so obvious. Here, the first ten paragraphs or so are taken up by the likes of Russell Lamberti, economic strategist at the Econometrix consultancy who blubs on about ""The unions are striking against something they can't control. Food and fuel prices are determined by global markets and not by policy. It's not a conspiracy against the poor.""
The first claim is false. Workers can control the means of production. The second is true but it is based in policy decisions. The third point is patently false. But no scepticism about these ideas is offered to the reader. Instead, the paper concentrates on a few burning tyres, the conclusions of travel company and police spokespeople and the timid demands of the conservative trades union movement. The people themselves were absent from the report, yet they are there in gigantic numbers. 93% strike action in some of South Africa's mines, a whole country on strike workers everywhere in the world gathering political strength.
Fear the wrath of the poor indeed. For We/they are very angry
Bread, circuses and war
The price of wheat, oil and other essential produce has declined over the last few days. One must not expect the crisis to be as predicatable at all. It has taken many long and intense negotiations between warring factions of the ruling elte to inject some relative stability into the world's careering economic system. It could be that the Olympic Games, that seem to have been with us long before they started, might provide the ferbrile poplaces temporary distraction, but the 'war' in the Caucauses is a major problem. It is one of those developments that is seemingly unconnected to the wider deteriorisation of international system, but just the kind of shock that generates dangerous and unpredictable events.
With a war in the near middle east, unresolved tensions between Iran and the US and a deep economic crisis - it's about time the latter day Lenins and Trotskies got their shyte together.
With a war in the near middle east, unresolved tensions between Iran and the US and a deep economic crisis - it's about time the latter day Lenins and Trotskies got their shyte together.
lundi 4 août 2008
Out of the mouths of beasts
The crisis is provoking more and more outbreaks of truth from the parasite class themselves. This from some insect atop a bust Australian bank on www.wsws.org, "NAB’s chief executive John Stewart, who resigned this week, blamed the deteriorating US housing market, saying in a television interview: “I think we are not at the bottom yet.” At a media briefing he commented: “Unfortunately, the behaviour of the housing market in the US leads us to believe that the worst-case scenario might not be too far away from the most likely scenario." [REL's emphasis].
Well put.
Well put.
dimanche 3 août 2008
Blair's memo
Arch wanker Tony Blair has leaked a memo in which he accuses Brown's government of vacuity and drift and so on and of not being capable of winning the next election. The Observer notes, extraordinarily, that ". . .never before has Blair's anger and dismay at what has happened to his party been so brutally exposed."
How ridiculous, pompous and outrageous is that stumpy little twig of a sentence. There is a whole thesis waiting to be written on just that phrase. "...what has happened to the party - Blair's angry about it? "His" party? brutally exposed - what, only now??
Hopefully Mossad'll do for him in a fasle flag op.
How ridiculous, pompous and outrageous is that stumpy little twig of a sentence. There is a whole thesis waiting to be written on just that phrase. "...what has happened to the party - Blair's angry about it? "His" party? brutally exposed - what, only now??
Hopefully Mossad'll do for him in a fasle flag op.
vendredi 1 août 2008
How come....
How come the government is quiet about the price gouging hike of 35% gas price rise? When the unions stuck for a rise of a measly 5% or so, the government slapped them down with talk of the workers creating an inflationary price spiral, but when British Gas does something like this, the silence is deafening. The demonstration of support for business has been so strong for so long that, of course, it comes as no real surprise, but even so - to leave this unopposed reveals just how far Labour has sunk and how far it is from the interests of the people, so much so that some extra-Parliamentary response must surely be inevitable.
Inscription à :
Comment Feed (RSS)
